Re: IPv6 patch

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:

> Rocco Altier <RoccoA(at)Routescape(dot)com> writes:
>> Another idea is to have the -i take an optional argument. Something
>> where -i means bind to both v4 and v6, and -i4 means to only v4, and -i6
>> to only v6.
>
> I don't see why we need any such thing. The current behavior of the
> postmaster (assuming -i or tcpip_socket is set) is:
>
> 1. By default: bind to all IPs on the machine.
>
> 2. If virtual_host is set: bind only to that one IP.
>
> It seems to me that in a machine with both v4 and v6 IP addresses, the
> natural extension is that the default behavior is to bind to all of
> them, or if virtual_host is set then bind to only that one, be it v4 or
> v6. (Does the existing patch work with virtual_host identifying a v6
> IP? If not, that's certainly a bug.)
>
> No one has offered any scenario in which it's important to bind to only
> v4 or only v6 addresses when both are present. In the absence of a
> compelling argument why that would be useful, I do not see why we're
> worrying. My own thought is that if I wanted to constrain PG to bind
> to a subset of a machine's addresses, the extension I'd want is to allow
> virtual_host to contain a list of names or IP addresses --- of either
> version. Basing it on v4 versus v6 has no payback that I can see.
Please make sure that you can handle the situation of a IPv6 API, but no
IPv6
stack. (E.G. UnixWare up to at least 7.1.3).

>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749